Has anyone ever 'been done' for riding a cheeky trail?

the bikers ride it, it becomes a trail, then the dog walkers walk it and decide its a footpath so block it whenever the mood takes them.
so the bikers clear it and ride it again, but now its getting obvious, so the groups of walkers walk it as well as the dog walkers.
thats the beginning of the end because
then the cheeky horse riders ride it, and like mountain bikers they are happy that its only them using it, so its ok.
now the trail is blatant and if the landowner doesnt block its use totally its not long before the MXrs get to it, soon to be followed by the 4x4s and intensive equestrian use.

then it rains.

nobody can use the trail at all, so over a year the quagmire is quickly covered with holly and brambles and fallen trees so the trail, footpath, bridleway disappears.

And the cycle begins again soobalias? To be honest, the only person in the above scenario losing out is the landowner. And that's probably only in an abstract way. Also, perhaps those who cause the least erosion are losing out because the trail becomes unusable but not by their actions.

have been flagged down by a "weekend warrior" peak park warden who demanded my address - naturally i obliged and pointed out that the peak park will have on record a lot of correspondence from me about their poor performance at implementing policy and that maintaining the many historical anomolies in the peak including the one i was riding wasn't acceptable (bridleway in S Yorks/footpath in Derbyshire - 300yr old pack horse route - NT land & check out all the verbosity about cycle access in their policies) - also i pointed out that i campaigned for many years with the sheffield campaign for moorland access including publishing trespass walks
think i bored him to death and heard no more

simple viewpoint and best wayforward - write to yr MP - CROW needs revising to allow horse and cycle access to all CROW land excluding SSI (if any exist)

as to prior to CROW found that a game warden with dogs and guns was usually persuasive - mind you been back at mooned at them since

What really gets my back up is that round here, we have two decent bits of Forestry Commission controlled woods, one has short length of bridle path with the remainder being "restricted access" & the other al"restricted access"

Restrictions are due to the fact that its all been used for shooting.

So the rest of us tax payers can't use it.

Perhaps I should strap a shotgun to the back of my bike western style.

There's a lot of talk here about damage to the environment and "someone else" possibly suffering because of us lot riding cheekily. One thing not mentioned much is the land-owners who "discourage" use of their land. I have 2 scars across my upper arms from a piece of bailing twine strung across a BRIDLEWAY. I dread to think how the farmer discourages bikers from the footpaths. I also dread to think what would have happened to me if it had caught me round the neck.

riding on a footpath would constitute trespass, which is a civil offence and not prosecutable as such

I thought it was made a criminal offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1996?

I'll ride wherever I feel it's suitable to

What happens when people disagree on what's suitable? 4x4 drivers think it's suitable to drive up on the Beacons and utterly demolish the trails. Horse riders also think it's suitable to ride up around Castell Coch and plough up the trails so they're unrideable. So 'whatever you feel is suitable' is not really a good yardstick I'm afraid.

So 'whatever you feel is suitable' is not really a good yardstick I'm afraid.

Depends whether you are a responsible person or not. I'm not sure if SofB is!

Personally I kind of lean towards thinking that people should be able to ride where they want, within reason. I think taking big groups of bikers on an organised ride to popular spots and riding footpaths is taking the piss slightly though.

There is a big difference between being cheeky localy where you know about likely conflict and being cheeky on some one elses patch. National parks in particular are an area where I think eveyone needs to be responsible. We don't want an MTB back lash caused by complaints about illegal riding

Most of te arguments on here seem to support footpath use by responsible motor bike riders. Personally I generally obey the rules cos the rules also protect me ans the trails

I got caught riding somewhere I shouldn't have been and got told to go, so I accepted it as we were sort of lost (new ride we hadn't done) and started to go down the trail/path to get off and 5 minutes later on the way down a huge guy who was fell running came up behind us and was really rude and told us to get lost!
I gave him my 2pence worth back to which he replied "you what sunshine" and proceeded to run after me! needless to say I bobbed it and razzed off at high speed! as he was about 6.4 (no joke).
I think if he would have caught me he would have punched me and forgot about a fine
Moral of the story don't ride where you not supposed to and don't p**s off fell runners

I got stopped recently by two rangers in Holyrood park, in Edinburgh. Told that bikes weren't allowed and to dismount. I didn't know what the score was myself (it's the Queen's land I think), but was happy to comply - they were cool about it and we had a chat, I was only arsing around on a new build in any case.

It was on the radical road for those who know it, not deep in the bog.

Gary, I believe you are right... Holyrood park is a Royal Park and thus apparently not subject to the Land Reform Act. I suggest you drop a polite email to the access officer at Edinburgh Council though - asking if he has had any discussions with the land managers. There is another Royal Park in Scotland which is managed by Historic Scotland and I believe in that case that Historic Scotland have indicated that although not technically subject to the LRA they will manage the land as though they were. Thats in a different council area, and I had a really constructive discussion via email with the Access Officer there who had been involved in those discussions. Not sure who manages Holyrood - but I would have thought it might be Historic Scotland too? in which case I would expect the same approach.

I got stopped recently by two rangers in Holyrood park, in Edinburgh. Told that bikes weren't allowed and to dismount. I didn't know what the score was myself (it's the Queen's land I think), but was happy to comply - they were cool about it and we had a chat, I was only arsing around on a new build in any case.

It was on the radical road for those who know it, not deep in the bog.

This is an interesting one that really needs to be tested in court. Does the land reform act take precedence over the archaic bylaws that cover the park? No one knows. i ride in the park a fair amount - using the principles of "responsibility" as enshrined in the access code - ie not at weekends or during peak tourist season and I give way to walkers.

There are one or two nice interesting bits of descent in the park.

As for the erosion issue - it very much depends on the soil type and many other factors - one difference is that bikes cut lines in the turf so can lead to water runnoff which causes very quick erosion. Some routes I know are very obviously badly eroded by bikes

This is an interesting one that really needs to be tested in court. Does the land reform act take precedence over the archaic bylaws that cover the park? No one knows.

TJ, doesn't need tested in court at all. The LRA does not apply. If I get time I'll look up the relevant clauses for you later. Not sure if this was 100% by design or was a loophole that no one foresaw. It strikes me as a stupid anomoly that H.M. would probably prefer not to have - as it makes them appear not to be in touch with even other land owners never mind the populus.

Poly, fair point but I don't see Scottish access legislation ever being extended to the rest of the UK, especially in the South of England, where you have a more dense population, more pressure on resources, and so forth. It's worth aiming for but even if it did come in the exclusion for agricultural land would probably make quite a chunk of the South out of bounds for starters.

6.1 The land in respect of which access rights are not exercisable is land—
...
(d) to which public access is, by or under any enactment other than this Act, prohibited, excluded or restricted;
...

I believe it is the Holyrood Palace Regulations 1971 as amended which are the rules which exclude cycling other than on the roads in the park.

However I have checked and Historic Scotland are the Land Manager at Holyrood too. Certainly with Linlithgow Loch and Peel (which is the other park in Scotland falling under the same sort of legislation) they have indicated that they are trying to manage access as though the LRA did apply. Of course they may not consider that off path cycling is responsible access - which is a whole different debate!

NO ... i am 100% for the growth of trails and 100% against the illegal riders ruining walking trials that WE would really like to turn into bike trails .............. BUT i had a warden flag me down a few months ago for riding a (regular trail that is only for walking) ... i slowed ... then pedalled like a demon , it was the best buzz i had in years

Depends whether you are a responsible person or not. I'm not sure if SofB is!

irresponsible to a T :o)

Most of te arguments on here seem to support footpath use by responsible motor bike riders.

I don't follow that. If I go somewhere with my bike, it's still me providing the motive power. Using a powered vehicle is quite different. I'd have no objection to motorbikes being pushed along a footpath...

I was reliably informed that I wasn't allowed to ride on Helsby hill at Christmas by a rather annoyed walker, the dozen or so other walkers we passed on teh way up and the way back down the other side didn't care and said a merry hello

The annoyed one was right, you're not allowed up there but it's bloody good to ride with tight single track, slick sandstone and a nice flight of steps to ride down on one side

A slightly different topic, but on the same theme. A mate I ride with and a few other guys were arrested and charged for 'building a cheeky trail' on private land. The owner had warned various people a few times over the years, felled a few trees to block trails etc. This was the final straw he called the police, they arrived with a van and carted them off to the nick. They were all charged with criminal damage and cautioned. Not such a good day!